User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2016/January

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


2016 year of the reader and peace

2016
peace bell

Thank you for your support and wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2016 Dirtlawyer1. May it be the best 2016 ever :) --regentspark (comment) 22:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Thank you for the New Year's greetings! Best wishes for a productive 2016 on-wiki! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dirtlawyer1

Pratyya (Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2016. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2016 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2016 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Happy new year!

Thanks for the message! Happy new year to you! Zagalejo^^^ 01:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
Hello Dirtlawyer1:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

North America1000 03:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
  • @Northamerica1000: I've enjoyed working with you in various XfD areas, and I look forward to more of the same in 2016. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dirtlawyer1!

Happy New Year!

Dirtlawyer1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
  • @Davey2010: Thanks for the good wishes, sir. I hope to work more with you around the encyclopedia in 2016. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dirtlawyer1!

Happy New Year!

Dirtlawyer1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Dirtlawyer1!

Dirtlawyer1, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor Talk! 23:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Pass on!
Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.
Information icon Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Happy New Year Dirtlawyer1!

Happy New Year!

Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2016,
Out with the old, in with the new: may you be happy the whole year through. Happy New Year! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 05:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
  • @Corkythehornetfan: Thanks for the New Year's greetings, Corky, and for all of you hard work on behalf of the college sports projects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

2016

Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cullen328: Thank you, sir, and more of the same good wishes for a happy and productive New Year to you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a rule that a valid navbox must be on a linked page?

Seeing there is some opposition to deleting this, I am curious if we are compelled to include navboxes on articles linked therein? The whole reason I brought this up is that the template is linked at Frank Keaney and seems very unnecessary. His three years coaching at the high school level are very far removed from this HOF basketball coach. So I ask, can I just remove it from the article and let you guys keep it on the football side? Rikster2 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Rik, the basic principle is stated at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. That said, I think navboxes for high school coaches is a horrible idea, and will only lead to the creation of more ill-advised navboxes and the creation of more high school coach articles of dubious notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that says it isn't required to be there so if the template is kept I plan to just remove it from the Keaney article. Honestly, I think the sports projects should show more restraint in creating navboxs (basketball included), but I don't want to speak for projects I am not involved in. Frankly, for football I think lower division head coach templates and starting quarterback templates are overkill as is. The last thing I'd think you'd want is some journeyman coaches at 5-6 different high schools then finally lasts a season or two at a college. It'd be a stub article with 6-7 templates on it. Rikster2 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. The proliferation of articles, navboxes, etc., on minor topics, sub-topics, and topics of dubious notability is the modus operandi of several of our CFB editors, and some days I feel like the little Dutch boy with my finger in the dyke . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Rikster2, a navbox should be transcluded on all articles contained as list elements in that navbox. That being said, I agree that high school coach navboxes are a really bad idea, and I have voted to delete the one in question here. But, if Keaney had coached football at a small college, there would be no good reason not to include a relevant navbox for that tenure, lest that navbox be deleted. A similar example would be Edward J. Hickox, most known for his work in basketball, but who was also the head football coach at Southwestern Oklahoma State and Springfield. I also agree that generally the sports projects should show more restraint in creating and supporting navboxes, particular one that denote honors, awards, and championships. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not what WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes and which navboxes to include is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Rikster2 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a terrible guideline and it should be changed. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree but at least it is a recourse if the football projects don't choose to draw the line where the basketball projects would. This is why I !voted in the TfD discussion, though. There is a potential impact beyond football to this template. I could also see someone creating a "DeMatha basketball coach" box or some such based on the model this creates. Just because something COULD be a navbox doesn't mean it SHOULD be. Rikster2 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

William White "Bill" Harris

Dear DirtLawyer1

I have a photo of William "Wild Bill" Harris that you could include in your post on Wikipedia. Let me know how I can forward it to you. William "Wild Bill" Harria is my uncle

Sincerely

Wayson Kobelansky

wkobela@hawaiiantel.net

  • Wayson, thank you for contacting us and offering to share the photo of your uncle. I assume we are talking about swimmer Bill Harris, a bronze medalist at the 1920 Olympics -- or are we talking about someone else? If we're talking about someone else, it would be helpful if you could link to the specific Wikipedia article.
Regarding your photo, we have various copyright rules that govern our use of photos on Wikipedia, and we will need the source Can you tell me what the source of the photo is? Do you know who the photographer was? Has it been published anywhere in the past? What year was the photo taken? What does the photograph show? Do you presently have the photo in an electronic format -- e.g., jpeg, pdf, etc.? Please advise -- I'm trying to assess if we would be permitted to use the photo. We can follow up by email. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

trout

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Lizard (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Why I am getting slapped with a trout fry? Is it related to Wild Bill Harris or otherwise? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, maybe I should have titled the section. It was a response to your "chicken" jab. Lizard (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox NFL biography sandbox testcases

Is there a reason why you're altering all of the testcase data related to the merge effort? The point of the selected examples is that they would be a representative sample of the articles that are currently using these templates, but if you're going to "fix" them, they're not so representative anymore. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

CFB Player embedded infobox

What did I do to cause the line wrapping in the birth/death text here which does not happen e. g. here? Cake (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The embedded Infobox college football player is constrained by the defined width of the parent Infobox person. BTW, why are you including the DOB, POB, DOD and POD twice? There is no reason to include them in the embedded box when they are already included in the parent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed it, Cake: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Both had the same parent infobox. Thank you for fixing it; I left the redundant dates in because that's how I saw it done before. Cake (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Position fields in NFL bio infoboxes

DL, I'm not sure where we are in the merge of Infobox NFL coach into Infobox NFL player, but one thing the coach infobox does somewhat well, which the player infobox doesn't handle well at all for coaches, is position. Take a look at Jack Del Rio. Nowhere in the infobox does it indicate that he played as a linebacker. I've seem similar cases where that one position field at the top of the infobox is filled out with something like "Head coach/linebacker", which is really goofy. The coach infobox has separate fields for current position and position, e.g. Wade Phillips. This is better. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Yup. I know, JW. I've just moved 20 or so NFL coaches to the modified Infobox NFL player (soon to be the new Infobox NFL biography), and that's one of the issues I've noticed still needs to be resolved. Deejayk has already modified the template to handle this issue for former player-coaches by moving the player position to the "career information" section together with the jersey number, but it's not yet coded to handle current coaches. Part of the problem is we need to settle on two separate parameters for player position and current coach title. I won't bore you with the details, but from what DJ has done already, it appears that we should be able to hard code it based on whether the parameter for coach title is invoked for current coaches. It's on the list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI: I'm leaving hidden text messages with the coach's former player position in the infoboxes [2], so we can revisit this issue when the coding is finalized. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
If we could ever get consensus to move the ongoing merge effort to completion, then a logical option would be to use the "current_title" parameter for coaching titles, which would allow us to present both coaching title (or position if you must) as well as playing position in a single infobox (as we do today using {{Infobox NFL coach}}). — DeeJayK (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I do think we agree on things more often than we don't.[3] Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill Belichick

You made an edit comment Per pre-existing consensus, we don't include one-day ceremonial contracts. Not that I disagree that the contract shouldn't be listed, but that was no ceremonial contract. The Jets thought they had a head coach, and he quit on them one day after taking the job. They were quite upset and screamed bloody murder in the NFL, eventually getting reparations from the NE Patriots. Quite the little scandal actually. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tarl. He was there head coach and it wasn't ceremonial. A ceremonial contract would be when Marc Colombo signed a one-day contract to retire a Dallas Cowboy. CrashUnderride 22:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tarlneustaedter and Crash Underride: Yes, guys, I remember the history now that you've reminded me. My edit summary was simply a canned response to the typical "one-day contract" silliness that IPs add all the time; I should have recognized this is not the typical situation, and not used the auto-fill canned edit summary. That said, I think we agree that any one-day, offseason contract, where no games were played and no substantive work was performed should not be listed. It's a minor footnote taking up valuable space in our infobox, and it's a complicated story that can only be done justice in the text, which should not be left to an ambiguous-at-best infobox entry. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a piece of (entertaining) trivia, not an indication of teams he's coached. The reversion should stand. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
As in the example of Marc Colombo, I think the contracts should be mentioned, like a lot are, just in the body of the article, not the infobox. CrashUnderride 03:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Template testing

I saw your recent self-revert at Template:Infobox NFL player‎‎. You were probably already aware, but WP:TPE advises to "thoroughly test your changes before implementing them", which is probably even more urgent on a high-risk, TE protected template like that one. You can exercise the test cases you've helped maintain at Template:Infobox NFL player/testcases by implementing your changes at Template:Infobox NFL player/sandbox before rolling them out in the live template. While copyedits can generally be made by template editors without discussion, WP:TPE does have the caveat, "Just be sure you're right!" [4]. Break a leg.—Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that Template:Infobox NFL player/sandbox redirects to Template:Infobox NFL biography/sandbox. I presume Deejayk did this thinking that editing on Infobox NFL player‎‎ would halt while the merge was in progress. I'd advise consulting with him before proceeding with any more edits to Infobox NFL player‎‎. If Infobox NFL player is going to be edited further, it really needs it's own sandbox to perform dedicated testing.—Bagumba (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to selectively engraft DJK's three improved coach win-loss record parameters from the sandbox version into the live version of Infobox NFL player/biography. Not sure what I did wrong, but I could not get the new parameter names/aliases to work, so I self-reverted. Probably missed a curly bracket, but I could not find. That's okay -- I'll just replace the parameter names en masse when I'm done replacing the remaining 288. When I'm done, Deejay or another experienced coder can strip the added code that was necessary to map Infobox NFL player into Infobox NFL biography. Thus greatly simplified, we can focus on the semantics and aesthetics of the surviving template without the complications of conflicting code and conflicting data formats.
The other changes I have made have all been cosmetic -- tweaking field labels to reduce their length -- no other substantive code changes. While these changes are cosmetic, there are still a couple of the NFL Draft-related field labels that need to be shortened to avoid unnecessary line-wrapping and unsightly squeezing of displayed data on the right-hand side of the box. Infobox NFL player was intentionally designed to be wide enough to accommodate longer coaching titles and award/honor names with date parentheticals -- and that's why the original design also avoided subfield labels like "Awards", "Honors", "Championships", "Super Bowls" and "ArenaBowls" the contents of which could be more space-efficiently listed using the plainlist field in the "Career highlights and awards" section. It was made to purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand you are not comfortable merging Infobox NFL coach to Infobox NFL biography yet. Do you have any reservations about having Infobox NFL player‎‎ switch over to the new version of Infobox NFL biography? That would alleviate your need to do piecemeal merging from the sandbox.—Bagumba (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Uh, I was under the impression that the sandbox version is the "merge" version, Bagumba. Sandbox going live = merge. That's why I was trying to graft sandbox code for the three parameters into the now-live version. BTW, I made the same cosmetic changes, as described above, to both the live version and the sandbox version, so that nothing would be lost when the final sandbox version goes live and replaces the now-live version. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the sandbox version is the merged version candidate. My understanding is that the merged version would be at Template:Infobox NFL biography. The steps to go live would be to 1) copy Template:Infobox NFL biography/sandbox to Template:Infobox NFL biography, 2) Redirect Template:Infobox NFL player‎‎ to Template:Infobox NFL biography.—Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wishing you all the best . . .

Hey, thank you for the Christmas message! Although a little late, happy New Year! Best regards. Érico (msg) 18:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Érico: Thank you, sir, and more of the same to you for 2016! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking team multiple times in infobox

Saw your edit to link the same team multiple times (Denver Broncos) in a player's history in the infobox. Your edit summary said "MOS now makes an exception for consistently linking in tables". Is that a recent MOS change? IIRC, WP:OVERLINK has had a general table exception for a while. Generally, I relink in an infobox if it's in a different section (e.g. draft team and player history), but don't really think relinking in the same section for a relatively small, unsortable table is necessary. Pinging Rikster2, as he does a lot of formatting on NBA infoboxes. (For the record, I don't plan on mass editing this area, unless I'm making another edit there already.)—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Consistently linking the team names in a list of team coaching tenures allows the reader to easily distinguish the positions held from each other. Frankly, I'm tired of fighting this one -- especially since MOS makes a specific exception for linking in tables. From a layout and graphic design viewpoint, it also just looks odd to omit the links for one or two teams in a list of a dozen. For a list of coaching tenures, where we are linking the team names, but not the coaching titles, including the team links also allows the reader's eye to easily distinguish one tenure from another. Creating a jellybean effect of some blue-linked, some not, makes it harder for the the reader. Time to apply common sense and use the MOS exception as intended. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No interest in wikilawayering. Selfishly, I use the non-linking to quickly identify repeated teams. The other caveat is re-training everyone else to this MOS exception. For example, I've given up on reverting based on WP:NOPIPE. Even though I'd be technically right, editors (including some admins) continue doing it (even after discussion), and it's just not worth it sometimes to re-educate the masses.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Pipe-linking properly is an art that most users never get. As a general rule, the displayed hypertext of a pipelink should only display what is semantically/intuitively necessary to understand where the link is taking you. I'm doing a lot of formatting and link clean-up as I work my way through the NFL coaches. A couple of things that scream off the pages are the average editor is clueless when it comes to standard English capitalization, let alone the variations of MOS:CAPS, and struggles to include the oddest article links with contorted pipelinks. I'm not only working through the ones that use the rapidly disappearing Infobox NFL coach, but all of the active head coaches and coordinators. I've done this in the past for all of the Pro Bowlers and new draftees, and a consistently formatted class creates a "roadblock" of properly formatted examples for other editors to understand and use. When I'm done with the template replacement, I'll then conform the formatting of all of the head coach successions, too. That should put a stop to most of the ad-libbing of the infobox formatting. Most of our drive-by editors just make it up as they go, and they have no idea that a standard format even exists. My personal favorite is the random capitalization of coaching titles, player positions and other phrases like "Touchdown" and "Zone Defense" in the middle of article text. We should really require evidence that "editors" actually passed ninth-grade English composition. Instead, we have obsessive-compulsive types who want to bowdlerize "winningest" from our pages; perhaps they should spend some more time actually editing and improving our neglected sports articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've always understood that the MOS was intended to be more descriptive than prescriptive. If a guideline isn't being followed by "the masses", then that's probably good indicator that it's a bad or unneeded guideline. Note that I'm not including guidelines that are there for technical reasons that are intended to avoid causing issues with output, screen readers, etc. But too many of the MOS guidelines are there because MOS activists are using the MOS to push there personal editing preferences, and the folly of that practice is shown in "the masses" ignoring those types of rules. - BilCat (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bill, I've repeatedly said that MOS works best when it tracks and describes the established majority practice in the real world. For example, most of our capitalization "rules" are simply the standard capitalization we learned in grade school (with minor variations), so it is intuitive to most of our better writers. When it does so, it is most self-enforcing. Where MOS creates problems is where it adopts a guideline that is conflict with the majority practice in the real world, such as the use of so-called "logical quotation" in article written in American English -- a practice out of synch with how the overwhelming majority of Americans actually write. The current MOS controversy over "winningest," however, is an example of OCD gnomers who cannot accept that English is a big language that comes in various shapes and sizes, each with its own rich history. Some of them also need to learn to accept 320+ million of the 450 million native English-speakers on planet Earth are Americans, and our vocabulary and style choices are equally valid to those prevailing in Sydney. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@BilCat: You are in line with WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: "Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." If a rule doesn't document a standard practice, it should be removed (I tend to stay clear of MOS drama and just ignore rules that are questionably written).—Bagumba (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
DL, I've noticed that, and almost commented on it. Sentence case in headings and certain capitalization rules are another thing that causes American users problems. Many of the most prominent MOS activists have clearly stated that they oppose American English conventions, and one of them states it outright on his user page that he opposes ENGVAR! The odd thing about it is that Wikipedia was founded by Americans. I've always believed that had the founders been British, ENGVAR would never have existed, and British English would be mandatory on English Wikipedia. And they think Americans are narrow-minded. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Bill, "sentence case" in headlines has been the standard practice for American newspaper and magazine headlines and section header for more than 30 years, largely as a result of the Associated Press Style Guide's adoption of the practice, it "sentence case" in American newspapers is more commonly used than not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
For the record, my grade school education was in a smaller Commonwealth country, so I'm somewhat comfortable writing in British English, though there are some grammar issues I can never keep straight as to which is American and which is British/Commonwealth. Even so, my natural style is AmE. - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of being miscast as an "Amerika uber alles" type (which would be rather odd for someone who spent a year at Oxford), I must say that many of the most controversial MOS issues are a result of a British or Commonwealth style choice being imposed in place of standard American practice. Several of the long-time MOS regulars will tell you that their own dialectical background has no impact on their style preferences, and they are only making "modern" choices that "logically selected" as what are "best for Wikipedia"; that kind of self-serving rhetoric sends me into orbit. As a Southerner raised and educated in standard American English, and as a professional who was also immersed in standard British English as a university student, I can usually move freely between the two environments and I appreciate the differences among American, Australian, British and Canadian English for what they are. My philosophical viewpoint is to embrace and celebrate the differences and variations among regional forms of English, and not try to impose an artificial uniformity. If I were Wikipedia "king" for a day, WP:ENGVAR would be much more broadly written and construed than it is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"many of the most controversial MOS issues are a result of a British or Commonwealth style choice being imposed in place of standard American practice." I TOTALLY agree with that, especially in American-related articles! I do understand that ENGVAR causes issues on topics with no natural language variety. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I am completely indifferent whether an article about a Brazilian, French or Russian subject is written in American, British, or any other variety of English; whoever gets there first, I'm happy to adapt that variety of English and honor the original choice. I find it amusing, however, that the article about the International Space Station -- an American-led project from start to finish -- is written in British English because the ISS is an "international" project. As if Americans had been confined between the Rio Grande and the 49th parallel for the last 200 years. LOL As I understand it, WP:ENGVAR is only supposed to apply where there is a historical or other logical connection to a particular variety of English; everything else is a choice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess the problem comes because people have different ideas of what is "logical". :) - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion has gone well beyond the original topic, but for the record I don't think teams in an infobox list should be liked more than once. Unlike some lists and templates, team lists in infoboxes are rarely all that long. I disgaree with dirtlawyer that it looks strange to have a few unlinked items in the list. Rikster2 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rikster2: What prompted this discussion are the lists of teams, tenures and coaching titles in the infoboxes for NFL coaches, of which we have numerous examples of 15 to 20 separate two-line entries -- one for each position held. Each two-line entry is bullet-pointed on the first line of text, the linked team name is followed by the tenure (i.e. the year-span) in a parenthetical on the first line, then the coaching title or titles are displayed on the second line of the entry immediately below the first, and the second line of text is slightly offset by the bullet point immediately above. It is challenging to present the data in an organized, coherent, and intuitive/self-explanatory manner without resort to obscure abbreviations or even more contorted design elements. As noted above, MOS already provides a general exception for linking the same article more than once in the same table. The semantic design constraints are somewhat different from your basketball biography infobox, wherein all of the data can be consistently packed into a single line for every entry of team and tenure, and your not dealing with multiple coaching titles on the same line of text. Because the entries for coaches are two lines, the team link also provides the reader with a natural divider as they scan the list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand what prompted the discussion, I just disagree with you on the proper way to handle it. However, I have never tried to push my will on football and won't here. Just giving my opinion on how I handle a similar situation for basketball articles. I don't believe 15-20 entries to be that many in the format they are shown. Rikster2 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
And I have generally agreed with the position you hold, although not with the same conviction as you. As I see it in the described circumstances, linking the team name, together with the bullet point on the first line of each two-line entry for a coaching position, permits the reader to visually distinguish each two line entry quickly and easily. A small thing, perhaps, but it's enough for me to invoke the MOS exception for links in tables in this case. At the end of the day, it's about presenting (a) a list that is easy to read at a glance, (b) in the most visually appealing manner. The design and implementation of the basketball box is sufficiently different that I am in no way, shape or form suggesting this as some new rule of general application. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
dl, it is fine, I am just not going to agree with you. You don't have to explain your position to me any more. I just added to the conversation because I was asked to. If you like I can just delete my comments and be on my merry way Rikster2 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
No, sir, my comments were not intended that way, and I know yours weren't, either. Your honestly stated thoughts are always welcome on this talk page, whether in agreement or as a second opinion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the linking issue is with coaches like Josh McDaniels with stints as assistants where the full position like "Offensive coordinator & quarterbacks coach" is listed. A couple of points:

  1. The NFL infobox uses bullets for team history, which sucks up real estate.
  2. Whereas NBA ibx just annotates "(asst)" or MLB lists under an "As coach" header, NFL lists the full title

Any of the above can change, or perhaps {{abbr}} should be used for coach positions with a tool tip of the full blown title.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Because the infobox template's width was defined by the desire to avoid line-wrapping for certain common CFB and NFL awards and honors, we have the horizontal space. No reason not to use it. The bullet points are essential to quickly distinguishing items in the list sections of the box. For the coaching history, scrunching team, tenure and tiles onto the same line invariably results in confusing two and three-character abbreviations. Because football has employed position-based coaching titles since at least the 1960s, we can't get away with using the generic "asst" as basketball does; in fact, the modern era, there are often assistant position coaches, e.g., "assistant head coach," "assistant defensive backs coach," "assistant offensive line coach," etc. And there is a huge difference within the pecking order between a pro coach who is an "offensive coordinator & quarterbacks coach" and a generic "offensive assistant". Hell's fire, I came across an article for an NFL coaching "intern" yesterday; suffice it to say, I PROD'ed that lovely tidbit of non-notable autobiography. Bottom line: coaching and team executive titles matter a lot in the NFL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There are certainly tradeoffs of more info in infobox vs readability. Basketball isn't a fair comparison, but baseball has 1B and 3B coaches, batting coaches, pitching, etc. but they are not itemized. I'm not vested enough to argue either way. Two lines per entry is the source of the NFL coach issue, so I hope the benefits are worth it.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
So I went back to see why I started this thread. The edit summary to your doc change only gave part of the story The reason for the change was not MOS table exception per se, but using the exception to address a quirk in NFL infobox layout. Perhaps the documentation should show a coach example. So my question original question is answered, I have no further comment on the decision, and you can consider this thread done.—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sir, the infobox documentation will need to be updated, with specific examples for (1) active players; (2) retired players; (3) former players who are active coaches; (4) active coaches who never played professionally; (5) retired players who are also retired coaches; and (6) retired coaches who never played professionally. I am aware of this need; that's why I made the effort to go through most of the sandbox examples to format them how they are supposed to look. I've also blown through all of the current head coaches and offensive coordinator, and most of the current defensive coordinators in the last week, so that they all have consistently formatted infoboxes (converted from the old to new infobox template, as needed) and a semi-coherent lead paragraph. That's a start. Once all the remaining examples of Infobox NFL coach are gone, we need to circle back to the sandbox to address several design issues for scenarios (2) through (6) above, including the placement of current team and coaching title(s), and placement of former player positions and numbers for active and retired coaches. Based on what DJK has already done, there are good solutions available for most of those scenarios. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Must an article be linked in a template if the template appears on the article?

Forgive the wacky wordage. But, for example, templates for Alabama football and Auburn football are on Bo Over the Top, yet Bo Over the Top is only linked in the "Culture & lore" of Auburn, and not Alabama. I've checked WP:NAV and other pages but maybe I missed it. Should/can a template be on a page if that page isn't linked in the template? Lizard (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. Navboxes should not appear on an article page unless the article is linked within the navbox. The converse is also generally true as well: an article should not be linked within a navbox unless the navbox appears on the article page. Some editors, including prominently Jweiss11, argue that both "rules" are absolute; I would argue that the second rule is generally true, but there may be occasional exceptions. As for "Bo Over the Top," the stand-alone article arguably should be merged to the Iron Bowl history of the Alabama-Auburn football rivalry. In the mean time, the game is obviously of greater significance to Auburn's history than Alabama's, so I don't have a problem with it being omitted from the Alabama navbox. Others may object, but I think such decisions are best left to the discretion of the knowledgeable editors who work with the respective teams most often. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Dick Howell" Page is grossly inaccurate - please fix

Hello,

I am a close relative of Richard Elm Howell, Sr. aka Dick Howell. We (his family) reviewed his Wikipedia entry, and records indicate you made several edits. The following issues are of primary concern: 1. His middle name is not John. 2. He did win a gold medal in the relay event at the 1924 Paris games (I know because I am in possession of it along with the articles in the Chicago Tribune) 3. There are a number of credible sources with accurate information which discredit your entry. Namely, the IOC's website and publications as well as the Northwestern Athletics website to name a few. 4. He was only referred to as "Dick" by friends and relatives.

Please correct these errors. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.94.177 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Howell family members.
Let's start with the easy part. Richard Howell was indeed commonly and publicly known as "Dick Howell" during his competitive swimming career, as attested by 1924 newspaper articles about his qualification for and participation in the 1924 Olympics. See, e.g., "Weissmuller Will Race Dick Howell," The Bakersfield Californian, p. 12 (March 25, 1924); "Dick Howell Placed First in the Finals," The Pantagraph, p. 10 (March 25, 1924); "Swimming Kings to Compete for Honors," Oakland Tribune, p. 23 (March 25, 1924).
In making changes to the article in 2012, I relied on the Sports-Reference.com athlete profile for Mr. Howell, which stated his middle name was "John." Given your concerns, I asked a fellow Wikipedia editor to double-check Mr. Howell's public records through Legacy.com to ascertain his correct middle name -- John or Elm. From Mr. Howell's handwritten and signed passport application in 1924, it clearly appears that the swimmer's middle name was, in fact, "John," but it also appears his son's middle name was "Elm" from the son's birth record. We also found that the son, Richard Elm Howell, apparently went by "Richard Howell, Jr." If we accept that Mr. Howell knew that his own middle name was "John" in 1924, then we can only guess that someone assumed from his son's use of "Jr." that the father's and son's middle names were the same.
Now for the more complicated part. Mr. Howell swam in the preliminary heats and semifinals of the men's 4x200-meter relay, and helped set a new world record in the event semifinals. See here. Contemporary newspaper accounts confirm that Mr. Howell was replaced on the American four-man relay team by Johnny Weissmuller in the final, and the team finished first. Typically, before the 1984 Summer Olympics, swimmers who competed only in the preliminary heats and/or semifinals of a relay event, and did not swim in the event final, were not eligible to receive a medal if their team placed first, second or third in the final. This changed in 1984, when the international swimming federation, FINA, changed its rules to make heats swimmers eligible for medals, and up to eight swimmers have received medals on the winning teams since 1984. That said, the IOC records and several other Olympic history anthologies do show that Mr. Howell received a gold medal in 1924, and it appears that 1924 was some sort of exception, or perhaps it was the first time a winning team used a substitute swimmer in the event final. No more than four medals were awarded to winning relay teams at the other pre-1984 Olympics. The gold medal you have in your possession, however, speaks for itself. I have revised the text of Mr. Howell's Wikipedia article accordingly, and I will continue to do research to ascertain why the 1924 relay appears to have been an exception to the four-medals-only rule that to all of the other Olympic relay events between 1928 and 1980. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The Summit League

What is your opinion on The Summit League being moved to Summit League? I know we don't usually use "the" in the article title per WP:THE. IMO, it would be the same as #2 about the US, and it would also be the same for universities. Just because the league wants to be called "The Summit League", doesn't mean we need to... Thoughts? ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 18:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Corky, my first reaction is "The What"? Kinda pretentious for a bunch of mid-majors who don't play football, isn't it? Kidding aside, it's all marketing, and the only group I know that takes the whole capitalized "The" thing seriously are a minority of Ohio State grads who insist on referring to "The Ohio State University". My short suggestion is this: the article title should be moved to "Summit League" per WP:THE, but the bolded statement of the full, formal name in the lead, along with "The Summit" nickname, should be kept. My political advice is seek out SMcCandlish, who is a regular participant at the talk pages for WP:Manual of Style and WP:Article titles, before you move the article title. SMcC and I have sometimes disagreed on proposed changes to the MOS, but he knows the minutiae of both WP:AT and WP:MOS regarding article titles, and he has been active in moving articles to their proper titles in accordance with the applicable guidelines. Getting SMcC involved will take the political heat off you in case anyone decides to oppose what I believe should be a straightforward move. It may be helpful to initiate an article title move discussion on the article talk page, too, so that the issue remains settled and there are no subsequent reverts on the title. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha! Thanks for the fast reply... I'll ask SMcCandlish. I had planned on doing a requested move anyway, just wanted to see what another's opinion was before I doing that. Thanks again! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As I observed elsewhere: We don't keep "The" except in the titles of published works (The Lord of the Rings), and a small number of conventional cases that are near-universally treated this way (The Beatles, The Hague). For other cases like the United Nations, the Crimea, the Cato Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Labour Party (UK), etc., "the" is dropped. Our readers expect this by now, and it's just redundant to include it. Several university RMs are good precedents to cite, along with MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME. The inclusion of "The" in a logo is just a stylization, if the vast majority of reliable sources do not both include it and capitalize it as part of the proper name, even if it legally is one, as in the case of the Brunswick Corporation which is technically "The Brunswick Corporation". Per WP:OFFICIALNAME, what the official legal name is takes a back seat to the common name. If sources are apt to refer to things like "the 2015 stats of the Summit League" (not "The Summit League"), or "the current Summit League MVP", etc., this is a good sign that the common name does not have "The" in it, regardless of the logo. PS: And, yeah, people love dumping their wikipolitical heat on me, ha ha. I don't mind. My skin is thick.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Mac. I haven't reviewed the applicable guidelines and recent discussions in a coon's age, but you just confirmed what I remembered. I would be grateful if you would look over Corky's shoulder on this one and provide backing in the talk page discussion when necessary (I'll watch-list it, too). Corky already takes enough heat around the college sports projects trying to get everyone to comply with the sourcing for our college team colors module. I appreciate your help on this one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames explanation

I stole your explanation, but it is pretty great. Hope you don't mind - I dislike seeing these as much as you do. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trut-h-urts man: Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. Steal away -- especially in the advancement of a worthy cause. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been removing nicknames from formats like "Michael 'Mike' Jones" with ES of "obvious source of nickname", but did discussions lead to anything specific in the MOS? I don't see any offhand. For that matter, WP:MOSBIO shows Bill Clinton as "William Jefferson Clinton", while the article itself has "William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton".—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion to which I linked raised a lot of questions and clearly demonstrated that there was no consensus to require the "Michael 'Mike" Jones" redundancy. When the nickname is already included in the article title and the infobox header, and the nickname is obviously a derivative of the first or middle name and a widely recognized nickname for either, then there is really no reason to artificially and awkwardly wedge it into the bolded statement of the subject's full name in the lead. Since the practice is permitted, but not required, I will leave the WP:COMMONAME nickname when it is not an obvious derivative of the subject's first or middle name, e.g., "Ambrose 'Rowdy' Gaines, IV," or "Matthew 'Bubba' Jones". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's a fun exception: Mike Caldwell -- Isaiah "Mike" Caldwell, Jr. Apparently, he didn't like Isaiah. And then there's Apollo astronaut Pete Conrad -- Charles "Pete" Conrad, Jr.; neither his first nor middle name was Peter, but his mother preferred Peter over his actual name, Charles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The more I think about it (again), I dont even know why we need Mike in Isaiah "Mike" Caldwell. Mike is already in the article tile. If we have Isaiah "Mike" Caldwell to reinforce that he actually goes by Mike and not Isiaah, then wouldn't Timothy "Tim" Tebow hammer home that he goes by Tim and not Timothy? Is this any standard or outside MOS we are following? Otherwise, this would be the type of thing to get reader feedback, if such a thing was even done (non-profit, i get it). Oh well, back to adding real content.—Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel your pain. I think the quoted insert of the nickname in the middle of the lead's bolded statement of the full name is visually/semantically awkward, and moreover it's confusing to many who are unfamiliar with this breezy journalism convention. That said, there is a vocal minority who think this should done universally and without exception (mostly folks with zero background in formal writing, layout and design, or graphics). I was just happy that the recent MOS discussion made it crystal clear that there was no consensus for the mandatory use of the inserted nickname. This gives use the leverage to delete 90+% of the redundant inserts. I can live with that for now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox conversions

OK I think I get the gist of it. Is there a list somewhere of infoboxes that haven't yet been converted? Lizard (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, unrelated, but should succ boxes be included in the collapsible "championships, awards, and honors" section? Lizard (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

LTW, here's my suggestion:

  1. Read through a half dozen of the head coach or coordinator infoboxes that I have replaced and for which I have properly formatted the input data -- especially those where the coach is also a former player. Coaches that were also players adds a layer of complexity to the mix, and will text your understanding of what you think you already know.
  2. Pick two or three examples -- perhaps some of the old-time coaches whose infoboxes have not yet been replaced and the data properly formatted -- and try cleaning them up yourself. If you want, you can re-do the infoboxes in a sandbox in your userspace (all you have to do is click on "Sandbox" at the top right of your Wikipedia page -- two tabs to the right of your user name).
  3. After you've replaced the infobox templates and re-formatted the input data as you think it should be, then ping me, and I will review and correct what you've done, and then you can use the "diff" comparison function to see what changes I made to your work.
  4. After we're done with the learning exercise, you can cut and paste the new infoboxes back into the articles.
  5. The list of articles that are still using Template:Infobox NFL coach is generated by a tool here: [5]. Note that I have excluded links and redirects, so the list should only include articles that actually use the old Infobox NFL coach.
  6. Use the "Field list" from the documentation for Template:Infobox NFL player; note that in the field list, the template has already been renamed "Infobox NFL biography," which is what the name of the surviving template will be when the merge and replacement of the old Infobox NFL coach is complete. I usually copy the entire template, and then remove the parameters/fields that are not applicable to a particular coach or player, and cut and paste the input data from the old template to the new. That way we can be sure that the we are using only the most recent parameter/field names and order.
  7. I suggest you try the following three articles for your OJT: Chuck Knox, Buddy Parker and Jimmy Carr.
  8. So I can compare what you've done to what you started, save the original infoboxes in your sandbox first, before you replace them. then I can use the "diff" function to see what your net changes were.
  9. Ping me if you have any questions, chief. Have fun. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I am deleting the assistant coach succession boxes wherever I find them. But focus on the infoboxes for now; worry about the succession boxes later. DL

How does this look, boss? Lizard (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

an article for Kristen Heiss's father, Bill Heiss

I am Kristen Heiss's aunt, the sister of her father, Bill Heiss. He is an All American swimmer whose achievements match his daughter's. I'm sure he would never ask for himself, but just back from the Colorado Swimming Hall of Fame, in which he was inducted, I am wondering why he would not have his own Wikipedia article also. I have the full list of his achievements from this recent reward.
I would rather email you than have this discussion on a public post (so would like to remove it once you have emailed me, please. mshwehde@gmail.com. Thank you for your consideration. 76.25.132.34 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Marilee Heiss Wehde

So, I assume that makes Kristen Heiss the granddaughter, and Bill the son, of William C. Heiss? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Good guess, JW. William C. would be the perfect age to be Kristen's grandfather (64 years older), and the family appears to have a variety of Colorado connections. My dilemma is this: the probably grandfather gets a notability pass because he held multiple Division I head coaching positions. Kristen is marginally notable at best -- routine coverage of her college swimming career, transactional announcements when she was hired as an assistant at Missouri. Being an All-American in swimming may or may not be meaningful; the top 8 swimmers in each event final (e.g., women's 100-yard freestyle) at the NCAA nationals are designated "first-team," and the second 8 are "second-team," and some additional number are designated "honorable mention." Most of the college swim teams conflate the three categories when they list them in their media guides, especially the lesser programs. So, "All-American" may or may not mean something, and the typical older media coverage, if you can find it, does not usually provide full lists of all of them. This is certainly nothing like being a consensus All-American in football, where it means you are recognized as the best college player at your position. For college swimmers, it means you are among the top 8, 16 or more swimmers in your event. Big difference, and certainly not something I would advocate adding as a new criterion under WP:NCOLLATH. For college swimmer notability, we have usually relied on WP:NOLYMPICS -- American swimmers who make the U.S. Olympic team are almost certainly notable under WP:GNG -- and WP:GNG for sorting everyone else. Earlier college swimmers also bolstered their potential notability by participaing in the Pan Am Games, Pan Pacs or FINA world championships. Having searched for swimmer "Bill Heiss" Indiana, I'm not finding significant coverage of Bill's swimming career. For a little flavor, see [6]. I'll keep looking. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Significant coverage of the middle Heiss (Bill) includes the following (all from his hometown newspaper): here, here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Cbl62. Bill Jr. certainly had one heck of a cheering section in the Greeley newspaper during his high school years -- the links you found are the tip of the iceberg. I don't think I've ever seen that depth of coverage for a high school athlete outside of some recent high school football phenoms like Tim Tebow, and certainly not from an earlier media era. You have pretty well established the Greeley paper as a significant source for Bill Jr. Bill Jr. was part of Doc Counsilman's dynasty years at Indiana in the late 1960s and early '70s, and I'm poring through Newspapers.com coverage of his Hoosier swimming career trying to figure out why he didn't make the '75 Pan American Games team -- back when the Pan Am Games were still the second biggest deal in U.S. swimming after the Olympics. He may have been overshadowed by his Hoosier teammates; Indiana was that dominant for more than a decade. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2016/January&oldid=1078473670"