Good job fixing the Milwaukee Brewer vandalism.
There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.
Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.
If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You've been doing a good job on the RADIUS spam; that last one looked legit 'tho. Well, at least not commercial spam (which is why I left it). Did you follow the link through? Josh Parris ✉ 07:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Memorial Stadium error. Palmer also threw one there in 69. In the correction I inadvertently thanked you as GreenLantern -- sorry about that. pickle 02:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Although the linking of dates is now depreciated, no one is actually allowed to go around in a campaign to de-link existing instances, as it appears you have been doing. Aboutmovies ( talk) 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The information in the infobox is sometimes duplicative of what is in the body of the article. It serves as a summary of highlights. I noticed that you have begun to delete the birthplaces of various ballplayers because they are reflected in the infoboxes. Well, so is their name. And so is their team (or teams). And so is their date of birth. And yet I don't so you deleting those from the text of the article -- though you logic would lead to that. I believe that you should follow the logic that is apparent from the infoboxes -- they are a summary of most pertinent facts, and inclusion of info in them should not lead to your stripping that info from the article. If you want to do that, I suggest you bring your suggestion to the baseball discussion page. In the meantime, please re-insert that info into the articles. If you wish to put it in the second para, that is fine with me, but it deserves to be in the article just as the date of birth (which you have not touched) deserves to be in the article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused --
First, you say you fail to see where I get that you are "deleting the birthplace in the opening because it's in the infobox."
I get it from the following 57 explanatory edit entries that you made (emphasis added in first one):
Second, the purpose of the infobox is to present certain summary or overview information about the subject that is IN the article. The fact that something is in the infobox is not reason to delete it from the article. This should be obvious, as the infobox also includes information such as the name of the person, his birthdate, teams he played for, major awards, etc., all of which is also included in the article--and I note you are not deleting those.
Third, perhaps I missed it, but while you say "the MOS clearly states that the birthplace is not to be included in the opening," (emphasis added) the first reference that you pointed me to only seemed to mandate what MUST be "at the start of an article on an individual" ... (his or her dates of birth and death). It did not at all seem to prohibit mention of the place of birth from being in the first paragraph (though it did not mandate it). The second reference, to naming, also seemed not to be relevant in the least -- if you can point me to relevant language in it that I may have missed, please do.
Fourth, if there is a mandate (or good reason) to not put the place of birth in the first paragraph, please point me to the mandate or good reason and feel free to move the reference to the second paragraph. But please by no means delete the information from the article, and please either revert the above deletions or move the reference (if there is support for the need to move it). Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If I may butt in on this discussion, both WP:NAMES and MOS:DOB is a guideline and definitely not a policy in which GreenLocust has implied. I think the mass deletion of birthplaces in the introduction to an article is unnecessary and personally I think it takes away from the article. Whenever I create any articles that fall under biographies of living people or athletes, I almost always start off with the opening sentence Joe Somebody (born 1st January, 1911 in Townsville, Australia) is an Australian tennis player etc. The point is WP:NAMES is a guideline and does not have to be (and actually is rarely word by word) followed by. So if it's upsetting people GreenLocust, please have good faith towards other peoples will and refrain from making such edits. JRA_ Westy Qld2 Talk 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Green, I think the main point is that the infobox has all sorts of information that is summary -- as I point out above. And you don't delete that information, even though it is in the infobox. Which I think is fine. But similarly, I don't think you should delete the birthplace. People may not read the infobox, just as they might not read the awards box -- and the birthplace is as basic (probably more basic) than the month and day the person was born. So I think it definitely belongs in the text of the article.
I would be astounded if the bios of most if not all of the 10 most read people don't have the place of birth somewhere in the text. Rather than just in the infobox. Check Obama for instance. If you want to move it down a para, do so, but deleting it entirely from the text and relying only on it being in the summary infobox alone does not cut it, is not like most featured articles, and is not like most encyclopedias.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You absolutely, positively should not delete information from an article's main body of text simply because it is already in the infobox. Infoboxes are summaries of key points (and often navigation aids, e.g. from one TV series episode article to the next), not stand-alone mini-articles. The article itself may be repurposed in many ways (all of Wikipedia's content is free and reusable), including in forms that do not have such things as infoboxes or MediaWiki templates at all, such as other websites, books, you name it. Infoboxes are a convenience for Wikipedia readers, nothing more. The flip side of this point, of course is that any information found in an infobox should be added to the article and sourced there; citations belong in the article, not the infobox. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: If the birthplace is in the lead ("Opening?" Where'd that come from?) on a article with an infobox, then its presence in the lead should be moved to an "Early life" or similarly-named section in the article. If there is not enough material in the article for such a section, then it should be left as-is, because the article is a stub and needs a lot of further development before all of the recommendations that could apply to a biographical article will even make any sense with regard to the article in question. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of largest video screens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miller Park ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, GreenLocust. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Good job fixing the Milwaukee Brewer vandalism.
There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.
Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.
If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You've been doing a good job on the RADIUS spam; that last one looked legit 'tho. Well, at least not commercial spam (which is why I left it). Did you follow the link through? Josh Parris ✉ 07:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Memorial Stadium error. Palmer also threw one there in 69. In the correction I inadvertently thanked you as GreenLantern -- sorry about that. pickle 02:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Although the linking of dates is now depreciated, no one is actually allowed to go around in a campaign to de-link existing instances, as it appears you have been doing. Aboutmovies ( talk) 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The information in the infobox is sometimes duplicative of what is in the body of the article. It serves as a summary of highlights. I noticed that you have begun to delete the birthplaces of various ballplayers because they are reflected in the infoboxes. Well, so is their name. And so is their team (or teams). And so is their date of birth. And yet I don't so you deleting those from the text of the article -- though you logic would lead to that. I believe that you should follow the logic that is apparent from the infoboxes -- they are a summary of most pertinent facts, and inclusion of info in them should not lead to your stripping that info from the article. If you want to do that, I suggest you bring your suggestion to the baseball discussion page. In the meantime, please re-insert that info into the articles. If you wish to put it in the second para, that is fine with me, but it deserves to be in the article just as the date of birth (which you have not touched) deserves to be in the article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused --
First, you say you fail to see where I get that you are "deleting the birthplace in the opening because it's in the infobox."
I get it from the following 57 explanatory edit entries that you made (emphasis added in first one):
Second, the purpose of the infobox is to present certain summary or overview information about the subject that is IN the article. The fact that something is in the infobox is not reason to delete it from the article. This should be obvious, as the infobox also includes information such as the name of the person, his birthdate, teams he played for, major awards, etc., all of which is also included in the article--and I note you are not deleting those.
Third, perhaps I missed it, but while you say "the MOS clearly states that the birthplace is not to be included in the opening," (emphasis added) the first reference that you pointed me to only seemed to mandate what MUST be "at the start of an article on an individual" ... (his or her dates of birth and death). It did not at all seem to prohibit mention of the place of birth from being in the first paragraph (though it did not mandate it). The second reference, to naming, also seemed not to be relevant in the least -- if you can point me to relevant language in it that I may have missed, please do.
Fourth, if there is a mandate (or good reason) to not put the place of birth in the first paragraph, please point me to the mandate or good reason and feel free to move the reference to the second paragraph. But please by no means delete the information from the article, and please either revert the above deletions or move the reference (if there is support for the need to move it). Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If I may butt in on this discussion, both WP:NAMES and MOS:DOB is a guideline and definitely not a policy in which GreenLocust has implied. I think the mass deletion of birthplaces in the introduction to an article is unnecessary and personally I think it takes away from the article. Whenever I create any articles that fall under biographies of living people or athletes, I almost always start off with the opening sentence Joe Somebody (born 1st January, 1911 in Townsville, Australia) is an Australian tennis player etc. The point is WP:NAMES is a guideline and does not have to be (and actually is rarely word by word) followed by. So if it's upsetting people GreenLocust, please have good faith towards other peoples will and refrain from making such edits. JRA_ Westy Qld2 Talk 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Green, I think the main point is that the infobox has all sorts of information that is summary -- as I point out above. And you don't delete that information, even though it is in the infobox. Which I think is fine. But similarly, I don't think you should delete the birthplace. People may not read the infobox, just as they might not read the awards box -- and the birthplace is as basic (probably more basic) than the month and day the person was born. So I think it definitely belongs in the text of the article.
I would be astounded if the bios of most if not all of the 10 most read people don't have the place of birth somewhere in the text. Rather than just in the infobox. Check Obama for instance. If you want to move it down a para, do so, but deleting it entirely from the text and relying only on it being in the summary infobox alone does not cut it, is not like most featured articles, and is not like most encyclopedias.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You absolutely, positively should not delete information from an article's main body of text simply because it is already in the infobox. Infoboxes are summaries of key points (and often navigation aids, e.g. from one TV series episode article to the next), not stand-alone mini-articles. The article itself may be repurposed in many ways (all of Wikipedia's content is free and reusable), including in forms that do not have such things as infoboxes or MediaWiki templates at all, such as other websites, books, you name it. Infoboxes are a convenience for Wikipedia readers, nothing more. The flip side of this point, of course is that any information found in an infobox should be added to the article and sourced there; citations belong in the article, not the infobox. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: If the birthplace is in the lead ("Opening?" Where'd that come from?) on a article with an infobox, then its presence in the lead should be moved to an "Early life" or similarly-named section in the article. If there is not enough material in the article for such a section, then it should be left as-is, because the article is a stub and needs a lot of further development before all of the recommendations that could apply to a biographical article will even make any sense with regard to the article in question. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of largest video screens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miller Park ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, GreenLocust. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)