This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Army鈥揘avy Game article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Thewolfchild: 1. Not sure why "the location of Army and Navy service academies" is preferable. It's certainly not colloquial. I was okay with the way it's been all along ("Locations of Army and Navy"). But when @ Needforspeed888: changed it, rather than undo his changes, I thought I'd implement his changes in a more colloquial way. I'd be okay with "the location of USMA (Army) and USNA (Navy)." 2. Why did you archive the talk page? . 3665047379b ( talk) 20:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Something you (366...b) should keep in mind is that arguments such as "no one does this" and "no one says that" are not sound arguments in deciding content. I realize that this is just an image caption and you are both a fairly new account and somewhat of an SPA at that, but these principles apply to all writing and content decisions. Your examples show you are still striving for something "colloquial", but you have to remember this is a global project, and we write for a global audience. It's not just Americans that watch the Army-Navy game, nor read this article. You also haven't addressed the redundancies and needless, clunky brackets you keep proposing. If both Needforspeed and I are ok with the caption as it currently stands, then there really is no need, or basis, to change it again, unless more editors join the discussion and there is a consensus in favor of something else. - wolf 20:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: You haven't addressed my main point. This college football rivalry page handles this caption differently from every other college rivalry page. Is there some standard? Will you edit Commander-in-Chief's Trophy and Secretaries Cup and Navy鈥揘otre Dame football rivalry which are exactly analogous? If not, why not? Belittling a participant in the discussion while ignoring his points doesn't say a lot for your perception of the strength of your case. 3665047379b ( talk) 23:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: Let me quote you, "If both Needforspeed and I are ok with the caption as [it originally stood], then there really is no need, or basis, to change it again, unless more editors join the discussion and there is a consensus in favor of something else." I don't agree it's an improvement. It introduced an extraneous concept that is no where else discussed in the article. And it is an athletic rivalry page where athletic monikers are used (and appropriately so) just like every other college rivalry page (not accidentally). It's not your way or the highway and no amount of your appeal to authority can change that it is not an improvement and not consistent with the way things are done at wikipedia. So when I do it it's "borderline edit-warring" and when you do it it's all good. 3665047379b ( talk) 12:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: By the way, years ago, when Army changed its athletic moniker to Army West Point, I changed the title of this page Army Black Knights football to "Army West Point Black Knights football". Editors more experienced than I changed it back, saying that the wikipedia standard was to use customary language not the official moniker. They went as far as to check ESPN, CBS Sports, and the opposing teams' schedules to see how Army was referred to. In something like an 11-3 margin, Army was referred to as "Army" rather than "Army West Point." They said that until what is customary changes, it is appropriate to leave it as just Army. So I'm not sure that wikipedia holds no value in colloquialism. See the Requested move of 28 September 2017 at Talk:Army Black Knights football 3665047379b ( talk) 13:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
No one refers to the United States Military Academy (USMA) or West Point as the Army service academy.", or in the words of NJchWpna; "
Nobody refers to USMA or USNA as Army Service Academy or Navy Service Academy.", but these are just strawman arguments as neither is the case. These are the academies of their respective military services, in short: service academies. They are just being identified, not renamed.
The caption currently reads: "Locations of Army and Navy". It's incomplete. Perhaps knowledgeable fans and some service members will understand, but as I said before, we write for a global audience. The caption was being completed for those who won't readily pick up on what that means. Adding the linked term "
service academies", which redirects to "military academy", (or it could link to
United States service academies, neither are linked anywhere in the article), is not the "introduction of an extraneous concept that is no where else discussed in the article
", it just clarifies what the caption is referring to, with a link (
which is a huge part of how WP works). And considering the article is about the annual game between these two federal/service/military (naval) academies, that is a significant part of what the article is about. You make it seem as if a completely unrelated concept, (such as "
commodity markets") were being inappropriately added to the caption.
Lastly, let's not forget that you yourself were in favor of adding "the location of Army鈥檚 and Navy鈥檚
service academies
" just
two days ago. With the exception of the possessives, both Needforspeed and I basically agreed with that. You are the one now backpeddling for some reason, and Needforspeed apparently only bowed out becuase of a "convention" that you went on and on about that doesn't exist. That is not the basis for article improvement nor how consensus works, just as we don't undo or impede improvements to one article with an insistence that other similar pages must be improved by the same editor as well (?!). You have again undone that improvement, and have continued to draaag this out for days, and 12+Kb, (over a caption!). I suggest you either
let this go and self-revert, suggest another improvement, or take this to
dispute resolution (over a caption!). -
wolf
21:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, why do you think referring to them as "service academies" is "confusing"? That is what they are. As I said above, they are the academies for each military service (also see United States service academies and United States federal academies).
The edit that clarified the caption was an improvement. It's typical of content found across Wikipedia. There is no demonstrable downside to it. And it should not have lead to this loonnng talk page debate, nor all the edits that have disrupted the page since. - wolf 08:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
So, you're going to complain that I "lecture" you about how things are done on WP, then turn around and lecture me about how things are done in sports? Needforspeed made an edit that was an improvement to this article. At one point, the three of us essentially agreed to having said improvement, which is known as a consensus. Here are the edits made since, including the first one;
list of edits
|
---|
|
I stand by my edits, which were due to that consensus. The edits made by others, since and now, are not an improvement. In fact, the page is worse off now than before this started. You are only interested in arguing. You seem to think that not getting your way is "losing", and you seem more determined than ever to "win". Making an article worse is not winning. I've tried to be patient, and have responded to all your incessant and argumentative replies, but that has just turned this talk page into a lengthy mess. You are clearly not working in good faith towards any kind of resolution here, and instead seem determined to just waste people's time. I'm not letting you waste anymore of mine. We're done here. - wolf 00:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
In the results table, what is the meaning of the notes that appear on some lines, e.g. "No. 21"? Is this explained somewhere that I didn't see? Theoldsparkle ( talk) 14:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
History section needs to mention why the one Army-Navy Game was played there (WWII) 2600:1004:B16D:42A:0:51:8253:7B01 ( talk) 15:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Army鈥揘avy Game article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Thewolfchild: 1. Not sure why "the location of Army and Navy service academies" is preferable. It's certainly not colloquial. I was okay with the way it's been all along ("Locations of Army and Navy"). But when @ Needforspeed888: changed it, rather than undo his changes, I thought I'd implement his changes in a more colloquial way. I'd be okay with "the location of USMA (Army) and USNA (Navy)." 2. Why did you archive the talk page? . 3665047379b ( talk) 20:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Something you (366...b) should keep in mind is that arguments such as "no one does this" and "no one says that" are not sound arguments in deciding content. I realize that this is just an image caption and you are both a fairly new account and somewhat of an SPA at that, but these principles apply to all writing and content decisions. Your examples show you are still striving for something "colloquial", but you have to remember this is a global project, and we write for a global audience. It's not just Americans that watch the Army-Navy game, nor read this article. You also haven't addressed the redundancies and needless, clunky brackets you keep proposing. If both Needforspeed and I are ok with the caption as it currently stands, then there really is no need, or basis, to change it again, unless more editors join the discussion and there is a consensus in favor of something else. - wolf 20:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: You haven't addressed my main point. This college football rivalry page handles this caption differently from every other college rivalry page. Is there some standard? Will you edit Commander-in-Chief's Trophy and Secretaries Cup and Navy鈥揘otre Dame football rivalry which are exactly analogous? If not, why not? Belittling a participant in the discussion while ignoring his points doesn't say a lot for your perception of the strength of your case. 3665047379b ( talk) 23:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: Let me quote you, "If both Needforspeed and I are ok with the caption as [it originally stood], then there really is no need, or basis, to change it again, unless more editors join the discussion and there is a consensus in favor of something else." I don't agree it's an improvement. It introduced an extraneous concept that is no where else discussed in the article. And it is an athletic rivalry page where athletic monikers are used (and appropriately so) just like every other college rivalry page (not accidentally). It's not your way or the highway and no amount of your appeal to authority can change that it is not an improvement and not consistent with the way things are done at wikipedia. So when I do it it's "borderline edit-warring" and when you do it it's all good. 3665047379b ( talk) 12:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: By the way, years ago, when Army changed its athletic moniker to Army West Point, I changed the title of this page Army Black Knights football to "Army West Point Black Knights football". Editors more experienced than I changed it back, saying that the wikipedia standard was to use customary language not the official moniker. They went as far as to check ESPN, CBS Sports, and the opposing teams' schedules to see how Army was referred to. In something like an 11-3 margin, Army was referred to as "Army" rather than "Army West Point." They said that until what is customary changes, it is appropriate to leave it as just Army. So I'm not sure that wikipedia holds no value in colloquialism. See the Requested move of 28 September 2017 at Talk:Army Black Knights football 3665047379b ( talk) 13:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
No one refers to the United States Military Academy (USMA) or West Point as the Army service academy.", or in the words of NJchWpna; "
Nobody refers to USMA or USNA as Army Service Academy or Navy Service Academy.", but these are just strawman arguments as neither is the case. These are the academies of their respective military services, in short: service academies. They are just being identified, not renamed.
The caption currently reads: "Locations of Army and Navy". It's incomplete. Perhaps knowledgeable fans and some service members will understand, but as I said before, we write for a global audience. The caption was being completed for those who won't readily pick up on what that means. Adding the linked term "
service academies", which redirects to "military academy", (or it could link to
United States service academies, neither are linked anywhere in the article), is not the "introduction of an extraneous concept that is no where else discussed in the article
", it just clarifies what the caption is referring to, with a link (
which is a huge part of how WP works). And considering the article is about the annual game between these two federal/service/military (naval) academies, that is a significant part of what the article is about. You make it seem as if a completely unrelated concept, (such as "
commodity markets") were being inappropriately added to the caption.
Lastly, let's not forget that you yourself were in favor of adding "the location of Army鈥檚 and Navy鈥檚
service academies
" just
two days ago. With the exception of the possessives, both Needforspeed and I basically agreed with that. You are the one now backpeddling for some reason, and Needforspeed apparently only bowed out becuase of a "convention" that you went on and on about that doesn't exist. That is not the basis for article improvement nor how consensus works, just as we don't undo or impede improvements to one article with an insistence that other similar pages must be improved by the same editor as well (?!). You have again undone that improvement, and have continued to draaag this out for days, and 12+Kb, (over a caption!). I suggest you either
let this go and self-revert, suggest another improvement, or take this to
dispute resolution (over a caption!). -
wolf
21:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, why do you think referring to them as "service academies" is "confusing"? That is what they are. As I said above, they are the academies for each military service (also see United States service academies and United States federal academies).
The edit that clarified the caption was an improvement. It's typical of content found across Wikipedia. There is no demonstrable downside to it. And it should not have lead to this loonnng talk page debate, nor all the edits that have disrupted the page since. - wolf 08:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
So, you're going to complain that I "lecture" you about how things are done on WP, then turn around and lecture me about how things are done in sports? Needforspeed made an edit that was an improvement to this article. At one point, the three of us essentially agreed to having said improvement, which is known as a consensus. Here are the edits made since, including the first one;
list of edits
|
---|
|
I stand by my edits, which were due to that consensus. The edits made by others, since and now, are not an improvement. In fact, the page is worse off now than before this started. You are only interested in arguing. You seem to think that not getting your way is "losing", and you seem more determined than ever to "win". Making an article worse is not winning. I've tried to be patient, and have responded to all your incessant and argumentative replies, but that has just turned this talk page into a lengthy mess. You are clearly not working in good faith towards any kind of resolution here, and instead seem determined to just waste people's time. I'm not letting you waste anymore of mine. We're done here. - wolf 00:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
In the results table, what is the meaning of the notes that appear on some lines, e.g. "No. 21"? Is this explained somewhere that I didn't see? Theoldsparkle ( talk) 14:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
History section needs to mention why the one Army-Navy Game was played there (WWII) 2600:1004:B16D:42A:0:51:8253:7B01 ( talk) 15:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)